The Romantic Erotic Novel

Chapter 18 – Part 2, Sexual Politics Redux

This is chapter 18, part 2 of the Pleasing María novel. If you are under 18 years of age, or are offended by explicit descriptions of sexual activity or violence, or by strong language, please exit this site immediately. To view the Table of Contents of the novel click here. To go directly to the first chapter, click here. To read the latest novel post, click here. This is a rough second draft.

Chapter 18 – Part 2, Sexual Politics Redux

The City of Light is also the gray city, devoid of the riotous colors and spirit of Mexico. The sky was gray, the buildings were gray, and the people were somber, rarely finding a reason to smile. Outside of work, I sat in the outdoor cafés of the 5th and 6th arrondissements watching the people pass by and reading Le Monde and Le Figaro.

I discovered if I displayed both English and French journals on my table, French students from the nearby Sorbonne University, would sit at adjacent tables and make comments directed at me, criticizing Americans and their evil capitalistic enslavement of the world. I often assembled a small group of students at my table and we argued in an awkward mixture of French and English.

This was exactly the stimulus I needed to understand how I had failed with María. I developed my arguments on-the-fly as I talked, drawing from my conversations with the libertarian Preacher and from many years of real-life tutorage under María. It was incredibly exciting – my mind tracked and winnowed through the possibilities, discarding dead-ends and selecting coherent and consistent options, trying to maintain pace in my rustic French interspersed with English and Spanish, the words poured out in a torrent. Sometimes I paced among the tables as I talked, looking away thousands of miles to Mexico as I drew inspiration from María.

The students were passionate, intelligent, and argued eloquently from the heart, but never checked their initial assumptions. With calm engineering logic, it was embarrassingly easy to trap them into inconsistencies and contradictions. I knew from my work in systems engineering when systems have intractable problems, where all efforts to fix the system fail or cause more problems, that system has a faulty architecture. At the deepest, fundamental level, humans have two choices in organizing society: 1) through liberty and voluntary interactions, or 2) through violence and coercion (the threat of violence.) The faulty architecture for relationships between humans is based on violence and coercion.

The entire recorded history of mankind, always based on violence and coercion, has never been free of war, genocide, poverty, starvation, slavery, torture, theft and taxes, murder, and the monster dwarfing them all, democide, whose toll is greater than all the other man-caused disasters together.

Once you’ve accepted a society based on violence and coercion, the only discussion remaining is who gets to use violence and coercion on whom.

The students’ statist solutions were exactly the cause of the symptoms they deplored. The ‘just’ society they envisioned had only a minuscule possibility of existence and a microscopic probability of functioning if based on a structure of violence and coercion.

The students sometimes brought their professors to argue for them. Their professors argued with subtle and sophisticated arguments to defend l’État de Providence (the French welfare state), and their arguments sounded convincing until you examined their presumptions.

The first presumption is the ‘state’ is some sort of sacred god, a continuation of the ‘divine right of kings’. The French have this infantile superstition of the government as something divine and sacred, like their royalty of before.

So when I asked them to define ‘what is a government’, the discussion was laughingly chaotic. Definition after definition was proposed and discarded as major exceptions to each of their definitions were easily found. Until finally, incredibly, especially for the French, the only possible universal definition emerged – a government is the group of people that claims the exclusive right to violence within a geographic area.

The leftist students, hating that definition, changed tack to define a ‘legitimate government’, basically the above universal definition but only those elected by a fair and free democratic vote. That eliminated China, North Korea, Cuba, the Arab monarchies, and several more. Closer examination of what is ‘free and fair’ eliminated many countries with closed political party systems such as the USA, and many European and Asian countries. Very few ‘legitimate governments’ were left standing. Then I suggested their new definition accepted countries that allow violations of basic human rights, such as slavery, racial apartheid, and oppression of women. The whole concept of ‘legitimate government’ collapsed.

The second presumption is the individual is the property of the state. Individuals are taxed, regulated in every facet of their lives from how they work and play, what they eat, where they live, and so on seemingly without end. Since physical slavery is no longer acceptable and is economically inefficient, the French were made property slaves – control a person’s property and you can control them completely.

Once you admit you can be the property of others, the only important question becomes who are your owners and how much of you do they own? 100% (total slavery), or partial slavery of 90%, 70%, 50% or whatever amount. At what percentage point do you cease being a slave? And if your owners can change the percentage unilaterally, you have no ‘rights’, only permissions, and you’re a slave at their whim.

The students bristled at the idea they were slaves, but could not rebut the idea. When these indefensible presumptions, the sacred, untouchable status of the state, and their control over the people was examined, all the sophistry of their professor’s arguments collapsed. This group of violent people, the government, and the systems, bureaucracies, laws and police groups they establish to protect their power and their ownership of everyone else, had lost its halo.

* * *

As the discussions continued night after night in the cafés of the Latin Quarter, my command of French improved and the number of students increased. I changed tactics to cast the discussion within French culture by starting with the French revolutionary motto, ‘Liberté, Égalité, et Fraternité‘. In Paris, the statues and monuments of Liberté (liberty) feature a women, Marianne (another María!) With one exception in the Place de la République, I noticed no statues of Égalité (equality.) This is no accident since equality is the direct opposite, the Male enemy, of the Female Liberty. There are scarcely statues of Égalité because they would need to be grotesque monsters to accurately reflect their evil.

My argument was simple and compelling – in their revolutionary fervor, the French had mistakenly ranked Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité (brotherhood) on the same plane without understanding Liberty and Equality are absolute opposites and incompatible, like matter and anti-matter. Because Equality, the Male, requires violence and coercion, every movement towards equality destroys a disproportionate amount of Liberty. Even a moderate ‘balance’, a ‘fair compromise’ between Liberty and Equality must eventually completely destroy Liberty, the Female.

Brotherhood, Fraternité, is impossible without Liberté. True brotherhood can only be created by voluntary association to create community. The intersection of liberty and brotherhood is where communities are formed and precise social assistance is possible, exactly calibrated to the need by the folks that love and care about their families and communities. In ‘equality societies’, community must be faked with collectivism. Collectivism is the attempt to create the appearance of community through violence.

To elevate Equality to the highest levels of values where Liberty resides, is to destroy the highest value, the Female value of liberty, and of brotherhood. So the Male, through its lust of power, using the coercive power systems: collectivisms, socialism, fascisms, welfare states (a popular derivative of fascism and socialism), communism, dictatorships, royalty, warlords, etc. must ultimately destroy humanity. Coercive equality is a crime against humanity.

Not all equality is coercive, it can be voluntary too. In a system based on liberty, people can freely choose to live in equality with their neighbors. Therefore, equality is a lower value than liberty, a sub-set. In liberty, people can voluntarily choose equality and voluntarily un-choose equality. But in a system based on equality, there is no opportunity to choose liberty.

In the Marais, the old Jewish quarter, I watched a diamond cutter carefully examine a large rough diamond, then tap it with a small chisel and mallet. The rough diamond cleanly split into multiple small, perfect diamonds. While the cutter explained you have to find the cleavage line that cleanly separates the crystals, another diamond crystallized in my head – individual liberty is a cleavage line, the cleavage line for the organization of any society. The libertarian Preacher years ago had been right. The left-right political spectrum was a fraud, a red herring intended to distract people from the real issue. The real-life spectrum is from liberty to slavery, and the right-wing/left-wing spectrum is just a small cluster of political possibilities close to the slavery end of the spectrum. Liberty is a cleavage point – you tap liberty, and all the confusion splits cleanly into clarity.

Now the farce of democracy was exposed. Unless democracy is absolutely limited by liberty, it’s just another form of tyranny. Seeing there were more men students than women, I asked the women, “Why can’t this group of men vote themselves access to your vaginae – democratically-voted gang-rape? Or to your other property? Your property is your life – your effort, time, irreplaceable pieces of your life.”

Their naive answer was their vaginae was their inviolable property, their very person, and not subject to vote by anyone else. Suddenly the idea individuals have inviolable rights that supersede governmental power caused an explosion of excitement and consternation. If government has no legitimate claim upon your body, what legitimate claim can it have on your mind and labor?

The French are famous for obeying the laws, part of their government-as-god fetish. I argued laws must be legitimate, just like governments, or they can be ignored and even sabotaged by individuals. Laws allowing slavery, mutilation of women’s genitals, honor killings, laws forbidding women to vote or own property, etc. Who gets to decide? Certainly not the illegitimate governments nor the same people who made the illegitimate laws – that only leaves the individual people.

Our discussion shifted to defining the inviolable rights of individuals. I stayed silent and watched the students argue among themselves. The quickest minds among them quickly jumped to the logical conclusion – governments, whether democratic or authoritarian, have no legitimate claim on individuals except what individuals offer voluntarily. Government’s claim is again exposed as nothing more than coercion and violence.

Finally, finally, after several nights of discussion, I had two students, both males, supporting me. They were far more articulate and eloquent in French than I, and held their own easily. The discussion turned into a heated argument as the leftists saw their entire worldview of statism undermined by the simple concept of liberty. All from a simple question about who owns a woman’s vagina.

The arguing students became so agitated I feared they were ready to throw punches. The café owner wisely brought over a round of creme liquor for the group and in his artistic performance of serving the drinks one-by-one, an uneasy calm settled in.

I had enjoyed their argument and the squirming discomfort of the leftists, so I jumped back in the discussion and threw out the next provocation. For decades, the politicians in China had managed a perceived demographic problem, overpopulation, by restricting the number of childbirths to one per family. A side effect of this law was a surge in abortions of female fetuses which ultimately created a surplus of 20 million men without possibilities of finding spouses.

France, like most of the developed countries, has a demographic problem – the low birth rate doesn’t produce sufficient future tax slaves to fund their welfare state. Now, if a man can be conscripted into the military, possibly leading to his death while protecting some oil company’s profits in the Middle East or Africa, why can’t women’s wombs be conscripted to solve the demographic problem, certainly a lesser risk than being shot at. A democratic vote of the politicians, themselves elected democratically, would create the policy: beginning at age 18, every woman would be required to birth X-number of children, the details decided later by their all-wise government bureaucrats.

The explosion I expected from the women students didn’t materialize. It was as if the fraud of democracy in a society based on violence and coercion revealed itself to the group all at once, and as they thought through the proposition to its logical conclusion, they became totally quiet. But if you believe in the supremacy of the state over the individual, such a mandate is quite reasonable.

If individual rights are not absolute, the evil potential of democracy is unlimited – 51% of voters violently imposing their preferences on the opposing 49%. Nothing more than one group of people voting themselves ownership of other people and their property. That is until just 2% change their votes, then the oppressed become the oppressors, adding revenge to their oppression of their former tormentors. Society degrades into a ruthless, cut-throat, dog-eat-dog fight, where the politicians promise ever more unicorns, free of charge, to buy the voters. Exactly what we see in current politics.

Democracy is governance by the people, self governance, a statement of individual liberty. A true democracy would give you sole and absolute discretion in every action in your life as long as your actions didn’t damage another – which services you’d use and pay for, including the choice to opt out of the tyranny of ‘majority’ decisions.

But instead, democracy has been deliberately corrupted, to allow only your choice of who will be your rulers, who will be next to loot, pillage and even kill you. So politics becomes about who owns you. Democracy is electing your owners; you vote for those whose whip is softer, with fewer knots, and hope they won’t change whips which they inevitably do. But why should democracy be limited to electing your next slavers? What is so sacred about coercive democracy? Coercive democracy is majority rule – liberty is self rule – they are incompatible.

Religions deserve special scrutiny, they are also slavery systems – you are the property of the gods as interpreted by the self-appointed priesthoods. How can a mere mortal argue against the gods? It’s interesting that the most radical religions are the most oppressive of women. For good reason – men are terrified of women. Women have the still unused power to upend all the penis systems of the world, and so women must be severely oppressed.

* * *

Any systems engineer in any discipline will tell you that systems that have intractable problems, where all efforts to fix the system fail or cause more problems, that system has a faulty architecture.

The foundation of welfare societies such as France and the USA have rotten architectures – they are based on envy, coercion and violence. The governments believe the people under their control are property, and they control their property (the people) by controlling the people’s property with laws, regulations, and taxes. People evade taxes not because they are greedy, but because they know intuitively that taxes are theft. And they hate the involuntary servitude. But as long as they can be confused by limited political choices (the Republican and Democratic parties in the USA) all close to the slavery side of the liberty-slavery spectrum, they can not even imagine the possibilities and richness available to everyone in a liberty society.

Coercive measures, the control of property, is almost always justified by appeal to a ‘moral obligation’ to the needs of the poor and unfortunate – but that ‘moral obligation’ is suspect itself – it’s a strong phrase of circular reasoning that implies coercion. But accept for a moment a universal desire to help the needy – that is totally separate from the methods to provide the help. To use coercion, even for this laudable desire to help the less fortunate, you MUST provide a moral justification for taking property by violence. Since completely voluntary methods exist to provide the assistance, methods that are more effective and efficient, without the enormous loss of the assistance by the corruption and friction of government bureaucracy, therefore the coercive, violent methods of property theft are not just wrong, but are deeply evil. It’s incomprehensible that people allow themselves to be the property of this evil.

Religions, philosophies, political systems, economic cults such as Keynesianism, and all other such superstitions pervert the Female supremacy of liberty, and suppress and repress the natural order of the world. If I could be a god, I would rewrite Genesis back to what is surely its original words: In the beginning, god created woman, she was alone, so god birthed the male from the womb of woman. A Male’s sole purpose, once selected by Female, is to please, protect and nurture the Female – everything else is just detail.

* * *

Arguing with the French students, I saw occasional flickers of acknowledgment in the eyes of the women, but they were ultimately unable to rise above their years of educational and cultural brainwashing. Acknowledgment turned to confusion, to contempt, then hate replaced the Female in their eyes. Now I understood the power of Penis-education. Brainwashed as children in the religion of statism, these women accepted their subjugation as obediently as Middle Eastern women accepted their burqa.

Even as I argued with the students, I sensed this discussion was pointless. To protect their privilege, their ownership of us, the sociopaths within the government would fight to the death – our death, not theirs. It would be easy, they have already given themselves the exclusive right to violence.

I thought back to the Preacher in San Francisco, and realized I had become an obnoxious preacher myself, telling people what they didn’t want to hear, swimming against the overwhelming tide of penis systems.

I decided to end these discussions with the French students, they had already chosen their way. I asked them to simply confess they believed violence and coercion is a better method to organize society than liberty and voluntary action. “Admit it, we’ll agree to disagree, call it quits, and have a departing toast.”

Silence.

So then I told these French collectivists if they wanted to see the future of the French welfare state, their future, they should go visit Spain and Greece.

I took a taxi back to the café two nights later, and sit in the taxi a few minutes unobserved watching the much smaller group of students. My two supporters were missing and the leftists were listless, bored, and angry, reduced to repeating emotional slogans at each other. I had failed to make any difference in their lives. They were young, alive, passionate and lost. I realized the futility of trying to change people’s beliefs, and my failure weighed upon me.

But having finally come to understand the proper relationship between Male and Female, it tore my soul to realize my absolute failure to fulfill my role with that extraordinary woman that had chosen me, my beautiful, sensual wife, María. From the first day I had met, she had shown me her real-life struggle to define herself in liberty from the systems and people that suppressed her. I wandered the streets of the Latin quarter, talking to myself, pondering, reflecting on my perfidy. I was especially distressed by the knowledge I might not be ‘man’ enough to repair the damage. I couldn’t conceive of where or how to begin, and I knew our perverse history of sexual license had rendered María as twisted as myself. I wrote María, told her I was coming home, and had lots of exciting and important things to discuss with her. I decided to start repairing the damage immediately – I told her I loved her ‘hasta la muerte‘, as deep as death.

End of book content.

I welcome all constructive criticism and commentary of any aspect of the story, from grammar and spelling errors to coherency problems within the narrative. If you’d like to comment on the story, use the (moderated) comments form. For all other communication with the author, send a message via the contact link at the top of the page. Please don’t spam or troll, your comments will never become visible.

If you’d like an email notice of the posting of each section of the book, please sign-up on the upper right side of this page. I promise you will never be spammed nor will I ever pass your contact information to anyone else.

If you enjoyed reading this piece of the Pleasing María novel, please share it with your friends.

Tweets from @TheGuyOrdinary

You are about to enter a website that contains content of an adult nature. These pages are designed for ADULTS only and contain explicit descriptions of sexual activity, violence, and strong language that many viewers will find offensive. If you are under the age of 18, if such material offends you or if it is illegal to view such material in your community, you must EXIT now. By pressing AGREE & ENTER, you state that you are 18 years or older and you agree to the Terms and Conditions of this site.